The Timaru Herald MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1934. WHITHER JAPAN?

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19960, 19 November 1934, Page 6

The Timaru Herald MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1934. WHITHER JAPAN?

Mr Frank Milner’s unqualified statement in an address before the assembled Rotarians in Timaru on Saturday night, that “the only means of averting trouble in the Far East is Anglo-American cooperation,” in the direction of “taking joint action as they did a few years ago, following free and frank representations to Japan at the Washington Conference,” calls for some comment in view of the silence of the speaker on other vital phases of the problem of maintaining peace in the Far East. It is deeply significant that our Eotarian visitor should have made no reference to the League of Nations, particularly in view of the recent admission of Soviet Russia to full membership, the reported modification of the attitude of the United States in relation to American consultation in world affairs at Geneva, and the softening of the German attitude since the entry of Russia. It is true that the Monroe doctrine, enunciated by President Monroe in 1823 provides that the United States would maintain aloofness from European affairs, but the fact remains that the fabric of the League of Nations would be immensely strengthened if the United States were to follow Soviet Russia into full membership. It may be argued by way of rejoinder that the failure of the League of Nations to discipline Japan, following her arrogant violation of treaty obligations, compelled thoughtful people to look elsewhere for safeguards of the peace of the world. The fact remains, however, as has been stated by the SecretaryGeneral of the League of Nations that “the alternative before the world is not a choice between the League and some better system of international relations, but a choice between the League and almost complete anarchy; indeed, the League of Nations authorities in Geneva insist that experiences in the past fifteen years have shown that it would be absolutely impossible if the Covenant ceased to exist, to reframe any comparable form of international constitution. The Covenant of the League of Nations represents the first and only practical measures taken towards establishing the rule of law in dealings among nations. There is readily available at Geneva all the machinery required to promote that mutual understanding which Mr Milner regards as fundamental to peace in the Far East. No one has suggested that the League of Nations is a panacea for all the diplomatic ills of the world. M. Joseph Avenol, the Secretary-General of the Secretariat at Geneva, confesses quite frankly that no such cure-all can be found in the world to-day. What he does say, however, is that the only means the League of Nations has at its disposal are those which are contributed by its members. Hence loyalty to the principles upon which the League of Nations is founded and a will to observe them, are more likely to provide a steadying influence through all the problems which face the world to-day, and which will always face the assembled delegates at Geneva, than any other course that might be followed. A moment’s reflection therefore would seem to suggest that the growing gravity of the Far Eastern situation cannot be met by Anglo-American co-operation and representation, since several other nations are closely interested and deeply involved. The Japanese argument that chronic governmental corruption in Manchuria, together with geographic proximity, and biologic, strategic and economic necessity forced the Nipponese leaders to tear up several treaties, defy the League of Nations, and wage ruthless war on a fellow member of the League of Nations and then defiantly occupy the conquered territory, calls for an answer not merely from Britain and the United States, but from a League of Nations composed of members representing the peoples of the great nations of the world who are prepared to honour their signatures and discharge their treaty obligations. Mr Milner suggests an Anglo-American understanding with Japan. Does he mean the conclusion of another treaty? Well-informed Oriental opinion insists that the occupation of Manchuria is but an initial step in Japan’s policy of political and economic domination of Asia, a proceeding which inevitably would disturb the whole world. Manifestly Japan has counted the cost and is resolutely and relentlessly pursuing that policy without fear of any check from Geneva because Nipponese militarism is gambling on divided counsels within the League to relieve the Japanese leaders of all concern of the consequences of their scrapping of solemn treaties and defiance of world opinion. Even in England to-day there is a large and influential section of public opinion which demands “Hands off Asia.” It is futile to talk of concluding an Anglo-American understanding with Japan, who will honour no obligations which conflict with her accepted policy. The elaborate self-defensive plan presented by Japan at Geneva was nothing but a clever after thought to divert the world’s opinion from the real issue—the violation of such solemn international engagements as the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Washington Nine-

Power Treaty which enforced, upon all signatories the safeguarding of the integrity of China, and the Briand-Kellogg Peace Pact, which outlawed war as an instrument of national policy. Manifestly, the only steadying influence that can put the Japanese expansionists in their place, is the united voice of the nations speaking through Geneva in defence of the sanctity of solemn treaty obligations which enforces the outlawing of war and the punishment of aggressor nations.